Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

151027Re: Evolution of Romance (was: **Answer to Pete**)

Expand Messages
  • Jeffrey Jones
    Feb 10, 2008
      On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 23:00:29 -0500, ROGER MILLS <rfmilly@...>
      >This is OT w.r.t. this thread, but--
      >Over the last several weeks, there has been an interesting and rather
      >astounding thread on Spanish "Ideolengua" (yahoo groups) regarding a recent
      >(?) book by one Yves Cortez, Le fran├žais ne vient pas du latin. (And by
      >implication, neither do the other Romance languages). Have any of you been
      >following it, or has anyone else heard of this book?
      >His theory, as I understand it without having seen the book (only the
      >Prologue has been quoted), seems to be, that the bulk of the Roman
      >population spoke not a colloquialized form of what we call Classical Latin,
      >but a separate IE language _closely related to_ Classical Latin but which
      >was already headed toward being a more analytic language. He calls this
      >"Ancient Italian", and it, not CL, is the source of the Romance languages.
      >The amazing thing is that some of the respondents are taking this seriously
      >!!! and are immune to all arguments to the contrary.
      >Well, slap my ass and call me Cato-- has M. Cortez never heard of
      >Proto-Romance? It would almost be worthwhile, and certainly amusing, to
      >actually get the book, to see how he dismisses almost 200 years of scholarly

      Well, the difference between a dialect (or sociolect in this case) and a
      language is almost purely political, so I suppose he could call VL a "separate IE
      language", if he really wants to. I don't know why he'd call it "Ancient Italian",
      unless he's reinventing the wheel (otherwise he's just remarketing old
      information). It might be interesting to compare what he reconstructs ....
    • Show all 16 messages in this topic